1 hour ago, shawk said:

"The Plan calls for funding of two BRT lines, which Metro will engage with the community to determine the corridors best served by the BRT service."

 

She did not reply as to whether this is attainable with the proposed May levy amount but with other comments saying it will be fully funded, I am assuming the answer is yes. 

 

A vague plan.  Awesome.  

 

 

1 hour ago, shawk said:

I personally find the ReinventingMetro website confusing and not updated with regularity, so I reached out to Metro staff. 

 

In response to my email about BRT and the conflicting information on the site (from my perspective and it looks like others' here discussed previously), the PR person replied:

 

"The Plan calls for funding of two BRT lines, which Metro will engage with the community to determine the corridors best served by the BRT service."

 

She did not reply as to whether this is attainable with the proposed May levy amount but with other comments saying it will be fully funded, I am assuming the answer is yes. 

 

Actually finding the plan is hard to find for a layperson and navigating the website is a nightmare. The last formal "specifics" I see is the ReinventingMetro Packet dated 1-19-19 in the January SORTA packet - which is not linked anywhere on ReinventingMetro.com (unless I'm missing it).

 

I feel strongly that the website needs to be more clear if they want this to pass. Metro's Twitter is impressive and they seem to have some great initiatives, but this is a lot of potential money and every detail counts. 

 

 

Public sector websites -- always winners. ?

5 hours ago, shawk said:

I personally find the ReinventingMetro website confusing and not updated with regularity, so I reached out to Metro staff. 

 

In response to my email about BRT and the conflicting information on the site (from my perspective and it looks like others' here discussed previously), the PR person replied:

 

"The Plan calls for funding of two BRT lines, which Metro will engage with the community to determine the corridors best served by the BRT service."

 

She did not reply as to whether this is attainable with the proposed May levy amount but with other comments saying it will be fully funded, I am assuming the answer is yes. 

 

Actually finding the plan is hard to find for a layperson and navigating the website is a nightmare. The last formal "specifics" I see is the ReinventingMetro Packet dated 1-19-19 in the January SORTA packet - which is not linked anywhere on ReinventingMetro.com (unless I'm missing it).

 

I feel strongly that the website needs to be more clear if they want this to pass. Metro's Twitter is impressive and they seem to have some great initiatives, but this is a lot of potential money and every detail counts. 

 

The website for Sound Transit 3, the transit funding package that Greater Seattle residents voted on (and approved) in 2016, contains very specific details and maps showing every piece of infrastructure that will be built with that funding and a timeline of when it will be built. (Go here to see a full list of the items that will be funded, and click on the plus sign next to any item for a detailed description, completion date, and links to documents with additional maps and more information.)

 

Reinventing Metro's website contains vague information like the fact that we will have "24-hour service on six major corridors." Which ones? Maybe this information is buried in one of the reports here, but why not put this information front and center? Give us the information and tell us exactly what improvements we will get if you want us to vote for this plan!

^too optimistic I think. The way to win this is through fear that the bus system will face huge cuts or will perhaps cease to exist as we know it if the levy loses. (Which is a true statement.) Proposing specific BRT corridors is too attackable from all sorts of angles at this point in time. “Why isn’t our neighborhood going to get a BRT route?” And “This BRT is going to take away parking, clog up traffic and ruin the neighborhood!” would be arguments spread through trolling by the same cynical opponents.

Edited December 3, 20195 yr by thebillshark

7 minutes ago, thebillshark said:

^too optimistic I think. The way to win this is through fear that the bus system will face huge cuts or will perhaps cease to exist as we know it if the levy loses. (Which is a true statement.) Proposing specific BRT corridors is too attackable from all sorts of angles at this point in time. “Why isn’t our neighborhood going to get a BRT route?” And “This BRT is going to take away parking, clog up traffic and ruin the neighborhood!” would be arguments spread through trolling by the same cynical opponents.

Yeah but if you're a suburban county voter, who cares? Why vote for a tax increase for a failing bus system that you don't use anyway? At least potentially transformational changes like BRT can help get those who should support the plan out to vote for it. 

 

At minimum, the website should remove old references to higher increases and various options. For example, if the SORTA board has already determined that a 0.8% levy is what they will put on the ballot per the news source on their own page here, why does the main landing page still say: "To achieve this, Metro is considering a Hamilton County Sales Tax at a level between .5% and 1.0%."

 

Once you've made a decision, actually go for it. If it fails, change it later. 

I think you could convince non bus riders that the negative externalities of a broken bus system (like increased traffic and unemployment) would be bad. The slogan should be “Save Metro”

^This is the exact reason why chucking the existing earnings tax is bad, aside from the fact we'd be moving from a progressive to a regressive taxation method.  

 

The .25% sales tax for union terminal passed because it was framed simply - to restore Union Terminal.  They didn't get into the weeds with the specifics.  

 

They should frame a bus tax as "restoring pre-2011 service levels, add new cross-town routes, and adding 24-hour service to Metro's 6 busiest routes".  Forget about BRT.  Nobody knows what that means, including its proponents.  

^A lot of them don't understand BRT because many BRT advocates are way more anti-rail than pro-BRT. They're not even in favor of Real BRT since Real BRT can actually be effective. No they just want sharrows, fewer, slightly nicer stations and no signal priority to make sure it still takes poor people 4X as long to accomplish anything and that there's no economic development.

That's a good way of putting it.  Buses were always the tool of the opponents of anti-rail efforts, but BRT, specifically, is a weaponization of buses.  As has been explained endlessly by people who were around before the invention of BRT, there is no such thing as "BRT".  If they want to use the term express buses, great.  If they want to build bus lanes or a "busway", then great.  But don't defame the term "rapid transit" when there is absolutely no such thing as a fully grade-separated bus route anywhere in the United States that operates like a rapid transit subway or el.  It's like saying a garden hose is the same thing as a fire hose.  

All I want is for Metro to tell us exactly what we are getting in exchange for the additional funding we will be giving them. I think that is a pretty basic thing to ask for before giving them my vote.

And I think laying out a plan would go a long way in generating more support for the levy in 2020.  Saying we might do some cool ideas doesn't leave anyone feeling like they have a stake in this (besides people who depend on timely buses now).

Bus signal prioritization for Schwartz Point

41 minutes ago, Pdrome513 said:

Bus signal prioritization for Schwartz Point

That photo/image/scan isn't showing for me. Can you try posting again?

Sorry! Tried to post the link actually, let me try again: https://city-egov2.cincinnati-oh.gov/Webtop/ws/council/public/child/Blob/55114.pdf?rpp=-10&w=doc_no%3D'201901810'&m=1

Really disappointing to read this.

 

52 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

Really disappointing to read this.

 

 

The proposed 2020 tax isn't serious because the board isn't serious and won't be until Cranley-era appointees are replaced with people who actually care, not the wives of staffers and donors.  

 

 

You’ve probably never heard of them. But they could decide the fate of the Western Hills Viaduct or your local intersection.

 

The key passage here:

 

Quote

And if Cincinnati Metro passes its 0.8% sales tax next year, the integrating committee will be in charge of administering the $30 million chunk of that levy set aside each year for road and bridge projects throughout the county.

 

That means this group you’ve never heard of could decide which roads get paved with bus-tax money and which don’t.

 

Whether a particular street gets new lighting, a new sidewalk or a reconfigured intersection.

 

And whether or not money is set aside for the long-awaited $355 million Western Hills Viaduct repair.

 

There are forces at work to make sure the additional funds only go towards roadway projects with little concern for transit. We are dangerously close to having a "transit" levy that will keep the status quo and be a back door for more roads with lips service paid to buses.

 

On 12/6/2019 at 5:16 PM, ryanlammi said:

Really disappointing to read this.

 

 

The worst part is that if they did this project without telling anyone, car drivers wouldn't even notice that anything changed. It's a win for buses and nobody loses (except I guess taxpayers) and they can't even be bothered to do it.

^That interchange used to cycle faster when Vine was 1-way.  If they really want things to improve there they need to eliminate the left turns from northbound Vine to McMicken.  

31 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

^That interchange used to cycle faster when Vine was 1-way.  If they really want things to improve there they need to eliminate the left turns from northbound Vine to McMicken.  

 

Yeah the cycle takes a long time primarily because northbound Vine and southbound Vine move on their own individual phases. To add to this, the crosswalk signal only activates when the request button is pushed - and when that happens, all lights turn red for ~30 seconds (which could make it a Scramble intersection with the right striping but that's another topic all together). The fire station is also capable of turning all lights red when trucks enter/exit, after which the light inexplicably starts back up at the beginning of the cycle instead of where it left off. I've seen buses wait 5+ minutes here before.

4 hours ago, JYP said:

 

There are forces at work to make sure the additional funds only go towards roadway projects with little concern for transit. We are dangerously close to having a "transit" levy that will keep the status quo and be a back door for more roads with lips service paid to buses.

 

Also, not only does the transit part of the tax fail to raise enough money for a local match for federal rail transit grants, I am suspicious that the use of the phrase "Cincinnati Streetcar" legally includes light rail.  

 

Yep. It's likely that any light rail built in Cincinnati would be compatible with the existing Cincinnati Streetcar track and rolling stock, so if Metro ever tried to even study light rail, COAST would sue and claim that it's illegal for them to do so and conservative justices on Ohio's courts would probably agree.

31 minutes ago, taestell said:

Yep. It's likely that any light rail built in Cincinnati would be compatible with the existing Cincinnati Streetcar track and rolling stock, so if Metro ever tried to even study light rail, COAST would sue and claim that it's illegal for them to do so and conservative justices on Ohio's courts would probably agree.

 

Yeah, they would preposterously have to study a system with broad or narrow gauge.  OKI, however, could study a system, as they did back in the 1970s and 1990s.  

 

What bothers me so much about all of this is that operating a bistate transit agency will require the cooperation of the counties more so than the cities.  That's what the county sales tax needs to be reserved for (although ideally the thing would be funded by Kentucky and Indiana) - not bus improvements that will be mostly within the city limits of Cincinnati.  

I would guess a light rail proposal would require a new ballot measure, anyhow. So it's probably not a big deal. It does create government inefficiency and red-tape, though. Like the "divorce" also does.

SORTA sends sales tax levy to March ballot

 

Hamilton County voters will decide on March 17 whether to pass a 0.8% sales tax levy to boost the Metro bus system and expand service throughout the county after the Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority board unanimously approved the levy on Tuesday.

 

The ballot language in the levy bars any of the money from going to the Cincinnati Bell Connector streetcar, whether it be for operations and maintenance or expansion of the system.

 

“The feedback we’ve gotten from the community is really strong behind this,” said Kreg Keesee, chairman of the SORTA board. “We’re really thrilled to be able to do this to provide the system people want and deserve.”

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2019/12/10/sorta-sends-sales-tax-levy-to-march-ballot.html

The transit tax is all about paying for the stadiums:

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2019/11/27/nfl-stadiums-what-should-cincinnati-do-paul-brown-stadium/2142787001/

 

Quote

 

Now at 19 years of age, Paul Brown Stadium's fate is being pondered by local leaders. It'll come up sooner than you think. 

The team and county officials plan on starting negotiations in 2024, two years before the lease expires

 

 

Yeah, with the "infrastructure" portion of the transit tax freeing up funds in the general budget to pay for stadium renovations. 

 

 

So, as soon as this tax slush fund passes, they're going to say that they need to connect South Cumminsville and Cincinnati State with a bus.  Boom, here comes that critical Elmore St. Viaduct we've all been begging for...Cranley wins.  The Castellini family wins.  We all lose. 

 

 

Now the FOP is claiming that "police infrastructure in the city is lacking." Could this be their attempt at redirecting some of this newfound "infrastructure" money towards police?

 

 

In other news, TANK is having a public meeting tomorrow from 4-7pm to discuss altering, eliminating or expanding routes. Nearly every TANK route is expected to be affected so if you use TANK or have opinions about it please show up or email them.

 

Five routes are expecting more frequent service, but eleven are planned to be eliminated or consolidated. 

 

https://www.tankbus.org/learn/2020-system-redesign

 

[email protected]

^ Looks like the 2X (the line that goes to CVG) is one of the routes planned for more frequency.

It kinda bugs me that the Southbank Shuttle and the #12 are being combined. This means they will stop running the trolley buses (finally!) but the tradeoff is the they can no longer cross the Suspension Bridge. I've always been perplexed as to why the Southbank Shuttle didn't run a look from Covington to Newport (instead of bouncing back and forth between them via downtown.) In the past TANK people said there is not enough rider demand. But how can we know if we are afraid of having buses cross the Licking River?

The challenge, like the Suspension Bridge, is the weight limit on the 4th St. Bridge. Currently, only the trolleys are under the weight limit, so it does limit what vehicle type can be used on specific routes.

On 1/6/2020 at 9:25 AM, taestell said:

Now the FOP is claiming that "police infrastructure in the city is lacking." Could this be their attempt at redirecting some of this newfound "infrastructure" money towards police?

 

 

That's some @jmecklenborg level completely unfounded conspiracy theory talk there. 

 

It's much more likely this is coming up because now is the time of year that the City votes to set capital and operating budget property tax rates. 

 

 

On 1/6/2020 at 1:43 PM, Robuu said:

^ Looks like the 2X (the line that goes to CVG) is one of the routes planned for more frequency.

Honestly, if you get the 2X frequency down to just every 30 minutes it would be great. 

16 minutes ago, thomasbw said:

That's some @jmecklenborg level completely unfounded conspiracy theory talk there. 

 

When the parks tax was proposed a few years ago, it explicitly required the city to continue to fund parks at the current level so that the new parks tax would be additive. Otherwise, if you passed a new parks tax without that provision, the city could start reducing the amount of money it was spending on parks and divert that money to other things.

 

With the infrastructure tax, if the committee decides to fund the Western Hills Viaduct in full (for example), the city and county and now take the general fund revenue that they would have spent on that project and redirect it to other projects that do not qualify as "bus infrastructure". The city could use that money for a new District 5 HQ, the county could use it for Paul Brown Stadium improvements.

so what you're saying is that every tax increase has to have a plethora of contingencies attached to prevent the local government from changing current funding levels because of the fear that they might use some money in a different way? It's impossible to stop all transferring of money to other pots. It's not realistic. This is COAST level opposition to anything. Everyone here threw a fit when they put a clause that prevented funding of the streetcar with the Metro tax levy. We shouldn't be trying to keep everything at current funding levels for all time. It's not realistic and it isn't productive.

On 1/6/2020 at 4:54 PM, fbusofsky said:

The challenge, like the Suspension Bridge, is the weight limit on the 4th St. Bridge. Currently, only the trolleys are under the weight limit, so it does limit what vehicle type can be used on specific routes.

Yeah the 4th street bridge is the worst rated bridge in the region from a structural perspective, and its really bad from a pedestrian/bike perspective too. I would like to see a TIF or some other fund so that all the development nearby, from the new concert venue, ovation and downtown Covington, can help pay for a new bridge.

 

That being said, living in Newport and going out in Covington, it is amazing how hard it is to get back and forth. You have to go through Cincinnati unless you just give up and call a Lyft. 

1 hour ago, ucgrady said:

Yeah the 4th street bridge is the worst rated bridge in the region from a structural perspective, and its really bad from a pedestrian/bike perspective too. I would like to see a TIF or some other fund so that all the development nearby, from the new concert venue, ovation and downtown Covington, can help pay for a new bridge.

 

That being said, living in Newport and going out in Covington, it is amazing how hard it is to get back and forth. You have to go through Cincinnati unless you just give up and call a Lyft. 

 

There was still a toll on the 12th St. bridge until it was rebuilt around 1999.  The new bridge is 2x as wide but doesn't seem to attract much traffic.  

 

Also, there isn't another local bridge over the Licking River until you get to KY 586, which is about 8 miles south of I-275.  The next one is at Butler, and the next one is at Falmouth.  

 

 

Issue 7 is kicking off at The Factory in Northside on Tuesday, February 11 and if you care about a greener future for Cincinnati and Hamilton County, I invite you to RSVP and get involved.

Issue 7 is a necessary issue for the future of transportation in Hamilton County and I think it is well designed. The issue unites two commonly seen adversaries by building a coalition between folks who commute by personal automobile and folks who commute by public transit. When Hamilton County votes YES and passes Issue 7, people will see critical upgrades being made to major streets in our county that make our roads safer and more efficient for everyone. This is a win-win

https://moveforwardcincy.com/overview/

Edited January 23, 20205 yr by Chas Wiederhold

The ReinventingMetro plan website implemented some updates today (or at least very recently, I don't know how to verify if it was today). 

 

Notable changes include:

- An updated Bus Rapid Transit page that explicitly states that 2 of 4 BRT corridors can/will be implemented: Glenway, Hamilton, Montgomery, or Reading

- A proposed "Improvements by Neighborhood" summary section that breaks down the routes and year-by-year plan. 

 

It addresses a few of the past concerns I've expressed on this forum. 

 Bus-only lanes are most-needed in the narrow neighborhood business districts.  That's where the time gains are to be had.  Instead we'll get bus lanes on wide parts of the road and we can take selfies and say WE GOT BRT!  LOOK AT ME TWITTER!

 

But the emperor has no clothes.  Bus-only lanes are most needed downtown and in the neighborhood business districts.  Does anyone really think Clifton business owners won't fight to keep parking on Ludlow?  That Northside business owners won't fight to keep parking on Hamilton?  Does anyone really think Norwood wouldn't fight bus lanes on narrow Montgomery Rd. between XU and Lee's Famous Recipe?  

 

 

I know the Indygo Red Line was built on mostly wider roads, but did the same parking removal problem come up when they were building it out? Or were they able to keep parking and remove 1 traffic lane?  I know our arterials are thankfully mostly narrow, but there's gotta be a playbook we can go off of here.  We are a decade + behind on implementing "BRT."

I haven't been up there since it was built.  But it looks like more of the weird jumbly streetscapes that come with so-called BRT.  And bollards.  Lots and lots of bollards.  

 

 

On 2/3/2020 at 6:55 PM, shawk said:

The ReinventingMetro plan website implemented some updates today (or at least very recently, I don't know how to verify if it was today). 

 

Notable changes include:

- An updated Bus Rapid Transit page that explicitly states that 2 of 4 BRT corridors can/will be implemented: Glenway, Hamilton, Montgomery, or Reading

- A proposed "Improvements by Neighborhood" summary section that breaks down the routes and year-by-year plan. 

 

It addresses a few of the past concerns I've expressed on this forum. 

 

This is what their website currently says about BRT:

 

Quote

Bus Rapid Transit  brings faster-than-ever service to major corridors that would significantly reduce travel times, benefiting multiple areas across the region. BRT combines limited stops (stops every ½-mile to 1-mile instead of every few hundred feet), dedicated bus lanes, off-board fare payment, raised platform bus stations, smart traffic signals, and larger buses to save substantial amount of travel time.  

• BRT operates 50% of its route in designated bus-only-lanes.
• Frequent, regular service (every 12-15 minutes)
• Stops spaced further apart for faster travel times
• Designated shelters and stations
• Traffic signal priority
• Larger vehicles
• Off board fare payment
• More amenities: comfortable seats, Wi-Fi, real-time screens

 

We need to hold Metro accountable because what they told people in a recent public meeting was that the new BRT routes will be "like Metro*Plus" (no bus-only lanes except for 5 blocks on Main Street, no off board fare payment).

^They might be able to fund Metro Plus type service on several routes, but wouldn't built something like what Indianapolis has without winning a federal grant.  

 

Also, I did look at the plan in some detail, and noticed some interesting things like turning the super-obscure 67 into a normal all-day route.  But aside from overnight and better weekend service on the major routes (17, 43, 78, etc.) they aren't expanding daytime service significantly.  

 

44 minutes ago, taestell said:

 

We need to hold Metro accountable because what they told people in a recent public meeting was that the new BRT routes will be "like Metro*Plus" (no bus-only lanes except for 5 blocks on Main Street, no off board fare payment).

 

What public meeting was that? I've never heard anyone from SORTA express that sentiment. The plan is for actual BRT, not more Metro Plus.

26 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

The plan is for actual BRT

 

 

What is "actual" BRT?  It's whatever they say it is.  

25 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

 

What is "actual" BRT?  It's whatever they say it is.  

 

We know you hate BRT. 

55 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

What is "actual" BRT?  It's whatever they say it is.  

 

Well, by Metro's own definition, they say "BRT operates 50% of its route in designated bus-only-lanes." So what is the likelihood that they are actually able to keep their promise and build 50% dedicated bus lanes along these four corridors?

2 hours ago, jmecklenborg said:

But aside from overnight and better weekend service on the major routes (17, 43, 78, etc.) they aren't expanding daytime service significantly.

 

My route (78) isn't getting reduced headways until 5 years down the road, according to the neighborhood improvements page, which means never.

 

I would kill for Metro+ (since we aren't under consideration for BRT) on Vine/Springfield Pike, our ridership numbers warrant it.

Edited February 6, 20205 yr by 10albersa